Do you still believe that
the demonstrations in the Islamic and Arab world have anything to do with
"democracy", or that the United States actually supports movements toward
self-determination and democratic reforms in the region?

If you do, you must also
believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. But if you don't, are you a
pragmatist who believes in doing whatever is required to maintain America's
advantaged position in the global affairs, regardless of who might have to be
stepped on to achieve that? And if you are a good Christian idealist with the
proverbial American sense of justice and fair play, who believes in the
principles of the Golden Rule, are you willing to jeopardize the standards of
living you have been accustomed to and regard as your birthright by having your
government limit itself to doing unto others only as you would have them do unto
yours?

How could we refer to the recent upheavals in Tunisia and
Egypt or, for that matter, the 2009 post elections demonstrations in Tehran, as
"pro-democracy" movements when we cannot even define what this deceptively
alluringly sound-bite really means? What do we or the news media and our
official Administration pronouncements refer to when labeling the demonstrations
in Tahrir Square as "pro democracy"?

Legend has it that after Darius the Great of Persia took
over the reign of command as the new emperor, he and his principle advisors sat
in council to determine the most appropriate form of governance for his vast
empire. One suggestion was a style of government patterned after the Athenian
model of democracy. Darius rejected that idea out of hand. While in a relatively
small city-state like Athens, Darius argued, such a system would work, reaching
a consensus among so many diverse peoples scattered in faraway provinces of the
empire would be totally impractical and would lead to anarchy and chaos.

After weighing other alternatives, Darius finally reached
the conclusion that an authoritarian rule by a wise and benevolent king,
referring to himself, of course, would be the best answer.

Question was then raised as to how the successor to that
wise and benevolent king would be chosen once the emperor becomes incapacitated
or dies. Darius pondered that point for a while and responded: We shall cross
that bridge when we come to it!

Now, what about the so-called Athenian democracy,
supposedly the model after which our modern Western democracies have been
patterned? In that ancient city-state, only the elite among the men of means,
i.e., property and slave owners, had the right to vote and be elected to office!
The rest of the population, including all women, serfs and slaves, were excluded
from participation,.

Today, as we all know, the United States is the
self-proclaimed champion and promoter of true liberal democracy throughout the
modern world. How does this paragon of a working liberal democracy actually
work? Well, every citizen of 18 years of age or older, excluding those convicted
of any felony, can vote for their favorite candidates. And, anyone of qualifying
age can become a candidate and run for whatever office they choose, provided
they can raise enough money and gain sufficient media exposure for their
campaigns.

Naturally, in a free enterprise capitalist system operating
within a liberal democratic political framework, big money, political and
corporate lobbies are also free to exert their influence over the news and
information media to promote the candidates they favors and to torpedo those who
are not willing to toe the line.

The average citizen, meanwhile, continues to go merrily
along with the pre-packaged news and information flowing out of the mass media,
believing that in a free democratic society there is little reason to be
skeptical or cynical about much.

How wonderful, indeed, and how symbolic of a true
democracy, that the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, sheds honest
emotional tears when recounting how he rose from sweeping the floors to become
the most powerful voice in the US Congress! And how wonderful that a Pompom Girl
suffering from IDD (Information Deficit Disorder) becomes the Governor of Alaska
and has a pretty good chance of becoming the next President of the United
States; that is if the other hopeful, Biblically brainwashed Fox TV host, Mike
Huckabee, who just returned from one of his frequent visits to Israel (he and
the Israeli lobby, AIPAC, know why), doesn't challenge her.

Well, this kind of democracy has been working well thus
far, and will continue to work as long as the citizenry remains relatively
content and preoccupied with new electronic gadgets and minor concerns about
having too much to eat!

Citizens will remain content as long as their standard of
living, as well as hopes and aspirations for even a grander future, as President
Obama, like all his predecessors, promise, are not seriously in peril. To secure
this image and to ensure the continued success of this liberal democracy, the
system has had to engage in methods and tactics in conducting the nation's
foreign policies, which are antithesis to what has always been advertised as
American moral and ethical values. In other words, the success of America's
liberal democracy has depended in great part on denying freedom and "democracy"
in regions of the world where America's perceived strategic interests have been
involved.

Egypt is a perfect case in point.

"Maidan Tahrir" meaning "Freedom Circus", like the
Piccadilly Circus in London, is not a "Square", even though we call it a
Square. Similarly, the multitudes demonstrating against the regime are not
"pro-democracy", but "anti-regime" demonstrators who have had enough of the
military dictatorship of a corrupt, ruthless and unpatriotic rule since 1973.

America had two fundamental interests in Egyptian affairs;
one was, of course, securing the western flank of its bastard child, Israel, and
the other to have "preferred" access to the Suez Canal waterway. Both these
"perceived" strategic interests required the establishment of numerous American
(sometimes referred to as NATO) military bases on Egyptian soil. Both Anwar
Sadat and Hosni Mubarak bought into the deal and traded Egypt's national pride,
independence and progressive reforms in exchange for the 2.5 billion dollars
annual American aid or, better put, bribe money. And, what was this so-called
aid money targeted for?

Most of that money was targeted for military and internal
security use. Billions of dollars of American taxpayers' moneys were spent on
purchasing American military arsenal and equipment, which was not a bad deal for
American military industries, and the rest used to maintain that wonderful
"stability" created through government repression and denial of any expression
of dissent and dissatisfaction by an economically deprived public.

For almost three decades this, according to our State
Department, "friendly, moderate, stable regime" carried on without too much
visible public outrage. But there is a sea change underway in the whole region
that is not going to subside with any "settlement" of the Egyptian dilemma.

It is truly amazing how as-a-matter-of-factly the American
media and the Administration are responding to the unfolding events in Egypt as
though it were a US Protectorate requiring directives from the White House and
the State Department to steer it in the "right" direction.

Even the labeling of the Egyptian uprising as a
"pro-democracy" movement seems to have an underlying agenda. This could be
serving a double purpose: One is to deflect the public's attention away from the
underlying angst of the Egyptian nation against the United States for creating,
funding and supporting that dreaded military dictatorship, and the other is to
establish new grounds to support the so-called pro-democracy Green Movement
against the Iranian regime at an opportune time.

It was ironic to hear Hillary Clinton initially vocalize
against the demands of the Egyptian crowds for the immediate ouster of Hosni
Mubarak, by saying that, besides the angry protestors and the loyalists, there
is the Egyptian nation that must be heard. Good for our Secretary of State! Yes,
Hillary, there is a nation out there that also deserves to be heard. A few days
later, Mrs. Clinton warned that, in chaotic situations like that, there are evil
forces from the outside as well as inside the country that might try to take
advantage of the situation, for which we should be on guard! She was clearly
referring to possible Iranian supported influences from outside, and the rise of
some Islamist movement from inside Egypt.

At the same time that these and similar statements were
being made, both the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and Vice President,
Joe Biden, were energetically encouraging the Iranian opposition groups to
follow Egypt's example and stage similar demonstrations against the Iranian
regime.

The leaders of Iran's opposition movement decided to take
advantage of the occasion and scheduled demonstrations on Monday, February 14,
supposedly in support of the Egyptian uprising, and thus jumping on the ongoing
bandwagon for obvious reasons. It was, however, interesting that, watching TV
and accessing internet videos of these demonstrations, there were no banners
displaying solidarity with the Egyptian uprising.

The highly publicized encouragements by American officials
further blemished the so-called Green movement in Tehran and helped discredit
its leadership for seemingly playing into the hands of Iran's enemies. This kind
of brazen interference by the American officials in Iran's internal affairs will
prove to be another setback for reform movements and a potential rapprochement
between the United States and Iran - and, my always cynical mind tells me, a
deliberate one!

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Biden certainly must know that there
is a significant difference between the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan,
Bahrain, Yemen, and soon to be Saudi Arabia on the one side, and the
demonstrations in Iran, on the other. The main difference is what Hillary
Clinton correctly referred to as the nation out there whose voice must also be
heard.

It is not at all surprising that Iran's firebrand and
ferocious critic of American and Israeli agendas in the Middle East, enjoys
tremendous popularity among, not just the Egyptians, but in practically all
Islamic states in the region. His popularity is not due to his good looks or the
way the Islamic Republic of Iran is conducting its own national affairs. He is
admired simply because of his and the Iranian regime's stubborn opposition
against the policies of the United States and the Israeli regime that have kept
Egypt and other client states from realizing their dreams of self determination,
national integrity and prestige, and independent statehood.

While Iran today does have huge internal problems, mostly
in keeping up with demands for economic growth and the unrequited expectations
of, as I have said before, a youthful, upwardly mobile population, the regime
does enjoy the spiritual support of the Iranian masses as a whole. This is
exactly the opposite of the situation in the Arab nations undergoing their
growing pains at this time.

The Arab and non Arab Islamic masses are convulsing against
decades of subservience to the interests of the colonial powers, kept silent by
despotic dictators whose livelihood and advantaged position depend directly on
their loyalty to the wishes of their benefactors at the expense of their own
nation's best interests.

Does the United States truly support "democracy" and
self-determination in the strategic region of the Middle East? Are you f-----g
crazy?!

How could the world's most powerful empire afford to allow
the control over its global strategic interests to be questioned, challenged or
usurped through local political developments, such as what is happening in
Egypt, Yemen or Jordan? The Empire must, and does, make all necessary attempts
to maintain its control over the region's developments to make sure the tide or
the floodwaters are channeled in the right direction. As many government
officials and media pundits have already stated, no matter what changes in the
Egyptian regime follow the current unrest, America's presence and control over
the Egyptian military, as well as Egypt's treaty agreement and cooperation with
Israel shall remain in full force.

In other words, the United States is supportive of
"democratic" developments in Egypt, as long as we define the meaning and nature
of that democracy. The same will go for the developments in Yemen, Jordan,
Bahrain, and potentially Saudi Arabia.

The Empire shall also see to it that Iran remains a
publicly perceived threat to Israel and other "friendly" American allies in the
region. This portrayal will justify America's military presence to protect these
allies, keep the flow of oil open, and maintain the "stability" (meaning
preserving the status quo) of the region.

Above all, having some measure of threat to the stability
of the region also benefits the Jewish state most directly: one, Israel, in the
atmosphere of unrest and uncertainty created by political upheavals in the
surrounding Arab world, cannot be forced into making any compromises regarding
its expanding settlement activities or peace agreements with the Palestinians;
and, two, this symbol of Western democracy and the staunchest ally should not be
denied increasing diplomatic support, economic and especially military aid from
the United States for its existential well being!

Well, the United States Congress, as usual beholden to the
Zionist lobby pressures, will gladly oblige, and, as far as our general strategy
in the oil-rich Middle East is concerned, we cannot very well allow the world's
richest sources of energy to fall into the wrong hands - the Chinese, for
instance - can we?

Do you still believe that the demonstrations in the Islamic
and Arab world have anything to do with "democracy", or that the United States
actually supports movements toward self-determination and democratic reforms in
the region?

If you do, you must also believe in Santa Claus and the
Tooth Fairy. But if you don't, are you a pragmatist who believes in doing
whatever is required to maintain America's advantaged position in the global
affairs, regardless of who might have to be stepped on to achieve that? And if
you are a good Christian idealist with the proverbial American sense of justice
and fair play, who believes in the principles of the Golden Rule, are you
willing to jeopardize the standards of living you have been accustomed to and
regard as your birthright by having your government limit itself to doing unto
others only as you would have them do unto yours?

Well, time to wake up, baby! The Egyptian uprising is
fizzling out as did the Iranian efforts before the CIA and MI6 assisted military
coup of 1953. No; it might have started as, but had little or no chance of
evolving into the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1978-79.

And, no; there is no similarity as to the motivational
dynamics behind the uprising in Egypt and other client Arab regimes and the
current Iranian opposition or the Green movement in Iran.